Jamie Dettmer is opinion editor at POLITICO Europe.
In this time of war, should Ukrainians — or those backing Ukraine, for that matter — refrain from public criticism of the country’s leaders, including President Volodymyr Zelenskyy? Should they forbear from raising questions about how the country’s being run, how the war is being conducted, or what the government did, or failed to do, in the run-up to Russia’s invasion?
Is it unpatriotic — or even dangerous — to find fault, as criticism might weaken public morale, offer propaganda fodder to the Kremlin and damage the country in the eyes of Western partners, possibly imperiling support for Ukraine?
The country’s opposition politicians, civil society leaders and some in the military have been wrestling with this dilemma daily for some time now. And they complain that Zelenskyy and his team view any criticism — including what is meant as constructive commentary to correct errors — as an attempt to run down the war effort and undermine unity in Ukraine’s hour of need.
Zelenskyy’s supporters counter that wartime Ukraine needs a strong leader. For good or ill, at this time of danger, Zelenskyy and Ukraine must be seen as indivisible. He’s a symbol of resistance attracting Western support. Criticize him, you undermine Ukraine and its fight, and there must be restrictions on democracy.
But questions regarding how to balance accountability, oversight, wartime unity and leadership have become more pressing in the wake of a blistering internet interview released midweek, with former Ukrainian intelligence officer Roman Chervinsky — a former acting commander of a special forces unit until recently.
In the interview, Chervinsky — who has a reputation for derring-do, as well as a history of spats with Zelenskyy’s top aides — accused the government of “criminal negligence” for failing to prepare the country enough for Russia’s invasion, and he queried why, just weeks before the invasion, an order was issued to de-mine bridges along the Crimean isthmus and one at Chongar, which allowed Russian forces to break through and quickly seize Kherson in the south.
Chervinsky also alleged that on the second day of the war, officials in Zelenskyy’s office refused to allow the bridge spanning the Irpin River, north of the Ukrainian capital, to be blown up without its approval. The commander of Ukraine’s 72nd brigade eventually destroyed this bridge on his “own initiative, and this is how Kyiv was saved,” Chervinsky said — though he isn’t clear cut on whether the missteps were caused by ineptitude or betrayal.
On Tuesday, Chervinsky was ordered by a Kyiv court sitting in closed session to be held for the next two months without bail, as a case against him for a failed special mission gets underway. The claim is that the mission —persuading a Russian pilot to defect with his warplane — was reckless, unauthorized and led to a leak of information, which then resulted in Russia launching a missile strike on the Kanatove airfield in central Ukraine in July, leaving an officer dead and 17 other Ukrainian servicemen wounded.
“His arbitrary actions led to enemy rocket fire at the Kanatove airfield in Kirovohrad oblast in the summer of 2022,” the press office of Ukraine’s intelligence service stated shortly after Chervinsky’s arrest. But Chervinsky said his detention is politically motivated, and part of the government’s strategy “to chase its opponents and destroy people who can talk about their decisions and actions before the war” and since the invasion. He insists the mission was authorized.
“We need to raise questions, but now the government tries to shut down people,” he said, complaining the country’s leadership stops individuals from “discussing or criticizing government decisions on Telethon” — a service that combines all the country’s national channels, private and public, into one unified terrestrial TV platform controlled by the government. Telethon was created under a presidential decree issued a year ago in March, ostensibly to ensure Ukrainians could receive “verified” information.
Chervinsky has a history of attacking Zelenskyy’s aides too. In December 2021, he implied Andriy Yermak, head of the Ukrainian president’s office, was a Russian “agent of influence.” The two had previously clashed over a planned sting operation to capture Wagner mercenaries. Given this background, many approach his remarks cautiously.
But, increasingly, ordinary Ukrainians are starting to ask similar questions concerning the lead-up to the war, how it’s been conducted since and the persistence of deep-rooted corruption in the country. With the ground war confined to the east and Kyiv no longer threatened, the sense of existential crisis has lessened, and the respite has prompted more political debate. For example, a probe into the state property fund, which manages state enterprises, conducted by the country’s anti-corruption agency NABU, is now gaining public attention.
Meanwhile, those who say Zelenskyy and his team are grabbing too much power and ruling by decree more than is warranted are becoming bolder. Government efforts to smother opposition by utilizing its control over Telethon, and the ever-ready rejection of criticism as “pro-Russian,” is getting much more pushback, as critics fear Zelenskyy is stealing a march on them with an eye toward next year’s elections.
Earlier this month, the speaker of the Ukrainian parliament — a member of Zelenskyy’s ruling Servant of the People party — reacted angrily to a POLITICO article examining the strengths and weaknesses of Ukraine’s president, which quoted critical opposition lawmakers. Printing off copies of the article, he sent them to opposition party leaders, the words “U for Unity” scrawled upon them. The leader of European Solidarity — the party of Zelenskyy’s predecessor Petro Poroshenko — sent her copy back with the response, “D for Democracy.”
Opposition lawmakers are now fuming at what they see as ever-tightening government control, pointing to the sacking of elected mayors, the pressure exerted on state agencies that are meant to be independent, the curtailment of parliamentary oversight, as well as cabinet ministers’ refusal to come to parliament to answer questions. And they question whether Zelenskyy is over-reaching when citing martial law for many of his actions.
“We are caught in a game of political blackmail. They see our demands for transparency and accountability as being disloyal, but loyalty to the president and loyalty to the country aren’t the same thing,” noted Ivanna Klympush-Tsintsadze, an opposition lawmaker and former deputy prime minister.
Accountability and oversight, discussion and debate are democratic strengths and not weaknesses, even in a time of war, she said. And she and other opposition lawmakers believe this is the moment for Western partners to use their leverage, helping to ensure that Ukraine is on a democratic trajectory for after the war too.